"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[_Rick_C]

Danny,

So are you saying that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, et al, were post-modern romanticists?

Sorry, I missed that. I think you guys are.

The above men were 'Greek' in their thinking.

Neo-Platonism and dualistic gnostic themes are prominent in the teachings of Origen who, as you know, taught universalism. Origen is famous for his "alleghorical method" where the original authorial meaning [of the biblical authors] wasn't necessarily the actual meaning. For Origen the 'deeper' meaning didn't necessarily have to do with the authors' thought or intention. Obviously, Origen's method is contra the grammatical-historical method used by (theologically) 'conservative' Christians.

It seems that the early, Greek-speaking theologians had a different understanding of aion and aionios than the later non-Greek speaking theologians (such as Augustine).

Augustine couldn't read Greek....

I wrote:
Texts have no inherent absolute meaning. Rather, it is up to the reader to find whatever meaning they "see". The surrounding context of texts (verses) are minimized at best, if not ignored. Personal beliefs and feelings are what interpret the text to give it its "real meaning".

You replied:
I think that's a cheap shot. C'mon Rick, you know better than that. Maybe some Christian Universalists take this approach, but those I know and read are very interested in sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis.

What one considers to be "sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis" another might consider it "poor hermeneutics and eisegesis". This thread and Calvinist-debates on this forum are good illustrations of this.

I wrote:
Alternate meanings of Greek words are wrongly used in order to support their personal beliefs. Greek words can and often do have more than one meaning. But when alternate meanings are deliberately selected to "prove" a personal belief or doctrine, this is eisegesis: "reading [foreign and/or your own] ideas into the text".

You replied:
But, of course, the same charge can be made from the opposite side. For example, how much was the decision to translate apollumi as "perish" in one place, "destruction" in another and "lost" elsewhere based on doctrinal presuppositions?

Agreed. The charge of doctrinal preferences or of forcing presuppositions into the text is made by opposing sides.

I wrote:
Imo, historical and literary context, and, original authorial intention and meaning are the criteria for interpretation of the Bible and its Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. Personal beliefs, philosophical or "curiosity" questions, presuppositions, and feelings and emotions are decidedly NOT the criteria for biblical interpretation.

You replied:
I think we all agree on that. C'mon, let's discuss the doctrines on their own merits and set aside the questioning of people's intentions.

I've already posted about: Eschatology, Christology, and Soteriology and didn't see any replies......

I wrote:
What stands out is Reconciliationist thought is erroneous on SO many levels that plainly put; I not only don't believe it was taught by Jesus and the Apostles; it was foreign to their own beliefs and worldview.

You replied:
Fair enough. Although I haven't seen anything all that compelling yet to show me how it is erroneous on so many levels, other than claims that it is.

You're CONVINCED, Danny! I can see that!

I wrote:
I won't go so far as to call Reconciliationists heretics.

You replied:
Thank you.

Although I am a heretic. And so are you. In fact, all of us are heretics in somebody else's opinion.

You're welcome.

And yeah, man: In this post-postmodern world---I heard postmodernism is dead!---- anyone can be a heretic. So, who cares?

I wrote:
My last paragraph was to say that the disagreement is strong and I wonder if this debate will ever end?

You replied:
Probably not, but I have enjoyed this thread!

From posting @ FBFF I've learned that some people are so different in their thought patterns (how they reason) and so on that the best thing to do is just agree to disagree or to avoid them. (However, we don't have many Calvinists busy debating around here these days)! I've seen enough to know that my own differences with the Reconciliationists who post here are, well, about the same as with the Calvinist debaters. But I guess I'll keep posting on this thread for a while anyway.

Talbott has certainly had an influence on me. Could you please delineate how exactly his portrayal of the three systems is inaccurate, his premises faulty, his arguments incoherent and his conclusions unreasonable?

I already mentioned it would take a lot of time and I don't really have it right now. I've said post-apostolic thinkers don't matter much to me. I don't base my beliefs on te teachings of guys like Origen, Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Arminius, etc., etc. More importantly, I don't base my beliefs on debates they have--or have had--with each other either.

I wrote:
The only authorities I recognize are Jesus and His Apostles who lived in the first century as Jews. Later Gentile religious systems, their teachers, their worldviews, what they taught, how they differed and so on, are of little consequence.[/b]

You replied:
So I take it you'll be burning your N.T. Wright books?

I can't affort them. The last book I bought (this year, I could afford only one) was:
Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity, by Larry Hurtado.
I spend too much time reading online; have only read 3 chapters!

I have books by authors I don't agree with (and built up my library pretty "okay"a few years ago when I could afford it). Many of my books are by liberal thinkers like Elaine Pagels, etc. I like her and other liberals' work because they include so much cultural, historical, and 'background' data. That stuff is really helpful for we who hold to the historical-grammatical method (though I really DO it to the best of my ability...when many conservatives don't). But they "say" they do though..........<sigh>......Anyway, Rick

[_Rick_C]

Todd,

Quite often when you quote verses that have "us", "we", "our" in them. You see these referencing every person alive but they are about Christians only.

Example:

You quoted:
Rev 7:9-10
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to OUR God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (bold mine).

The "our" are God's people; He's their God. They've come from every nationality, tribe, etc. Some of them come from Iraq: the Christians in Iraq. Todd, the "our" people (above) aren't Islamic! Do you see that?

I wrote:
With truth admitted or at least definitely known by every person---the wages of sin is death---then God will mercifully put those in the Lake of Fire out of their misery in the judgment of the Second Death. Also, and this is important: They will have PAID the penalty for their own sins by undergoing the Second Death. Seen in this way, the love and mercy of God is commensurate with His holiness and justice. The Second Death is both severe justice and severe mercy, imo.

You replied:
1. So you believe that God tortures people for a while in the Lake of Fire and then "mercifully" annihilates them. I suppose that's your view of God doing good unto His enemies...that He doesn't torture them forever. It sounds pretty bad to me.

2. The Gospel is supposed to be Good News. This view of the Gospel spells torture and death for the vast majority of God's creation, which is a very different picture than you get from the Bible in the following scriptures.

1. I admit I don't have biblical support for God doing "mercy-killing". He is slow to anger and His wrath won't be forever (it says in the OT). But yes, God's judgment is a very good thing, imo. He judged me & I got saved!

2. Good news is contrasted and over against bad news (that's what makes it "good"). The Gospel actually contains both bad and good news: a. all have sinned and the wages of sin is death and b. Jesus Christ died for our sins and will save all who believe on Him---before they die!

Here are things we all agree on (I think).

1. We all agree that those who do not place faith in Christ will suffer God's wrath.

2. We all agree that the faithful, who follow the leadership of the Spirit, will be forgiven and be saved from God's wrath.

1. If I were to take this statement "literally" I agree. However, since I've read the context of the thread (context, like how we should read the Bible!); I know that some believe the wrath of God will go on for billions of untold endless aions...whether this wrath is really "an education" (Paidion) or "punishment" (if we still have any traditional thinkers here?).

2. Taken "literally" I agree. How the "Spirit" leads us is going to be different. We don't proclaim the exact same Gospel, just the "Jesus Saves" part.....

Here's where the disagreement starts:

3. The 'orthodox' camp believes that God's wrath against the unfaithful continues to be executed forever and that it has no end.

4. The Universal Reconciliation camp believes that the execution of God's wrath is according (proportional) to works, and is completed before the end. The 'end' follows and is described in these scriptures:

a) God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:28 )
b) All creation will join the sons of God in glorious liberty (Rom 8:21, Rev 5:13)
c) Every knee will bow and praise God (Is 45:22-25, Phil 2:9-11)
d) Death will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26, 54-55)

3. Agreed. But Conditional Immortality and Universalism are gaining acceptance.

4. I think some believe God's "educational or correctional" wrath might go on for aions & aions & aions. Paidion might believe this. I know Origen did.

a) I believe the Last Judgment will occur before when God is all in all (who remain).

b) Yes, the Sons of God, NOT the sons of the devil (see my comments above, please).

c) This thread was supposed be about these verses (I thought)! I said a few things about them and it still hasn't been determined what Paul's quoting Isaiah meant. People might be forced to confess "Jesus is Lord" but stating it doesn't necessarily mean they believe in Him unto salvation: "The demons believe and tremble." The "Jesus is Lord" creedal confession leads to salvation (obtained in this age only, Romans 10:9-10).

d) The death referred to here is about the immortality of believers; we (by "we" I don't mean all people) will die no more.

The big difference seems to be what happens after the punishment (and reward) is complete. You say annihilation, others say reconciliation. I think the scriptures support reconciliation.

Every passage in the Bible that's about 'being reconciled to God' is in the present-NOW-tense. I don't know a single verse that commands men to repent and believe the Gospel now---OR---after they die. I'd like to see one...but don't think any are there.....

Imnsho's,
Rick

[mgarrett]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have one question regarding one of your comments.

I wrote:
b) All creation will join the sons of God in glorious liberty (Rom 8:21, Rev 5:13)

You replied:
b) Yes, the Sons of God, NOT the sons of the devil (see my comments above, please).

From your answer it appears that you don't think that the "creation" mentioned in these verses includes mankind...right? This question is vitally important to this debate. If "creation" means everything God created, then it includes everyone and everything. With specific reference to Rom 8:21, if that includes all of creation, then this verse is strong support for Universal Reconciliation. Notice that v.22 mentions the "whole creation," which would include mankind, imo.

Todd

[mgarrett]

Todd,

Quite often when you quote verses that have "us", "we", "our" in them. You see these referencing every person alive but they are about Christians only.

Example:

You quoted:
Rev 7:9-10
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to OUR God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (bold mine).

The "our" are God's people; He's their God. They've come from every nationality, tribe, etc. Some of them come from Iraq: the Christians in Iraq. Todd, the "our" people (above) aren't Islamic! Do you see that?

Rick,

So you are saying that if those who were Muslims (during their lifetime) were standing there, they would be saying "Salvation belongs to your God"? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. If this verse actually does include everybody, wouldn't they still say "our God"? Think of the "every knee shall bow" verses where they confess Christ as Lord; isn't that similar to saying, "our God"? Everyone will be a Christian at this point.

Todd

[Guest]

Hi Rick,

If you'll permit me, I'd like to jump in and comment on this:

Good news is contrasted and over against bad news (that's what makes it "good"). The Gospel actually contains both bad and good news: a. all have sinned and the wages of sin is death and b. Jesus Christ died for our sins and will save all who believe on Him---before they die!

This statement brought back memories of "Way of the Master", that dreadful (literally) evangelistic method taught by Ray Comfort and that actor guy. I was briefly into "Way of the Master". By briefly, I mean for about 48 hours. Their methodology is to hit 'em with the bad news first. Go through the Ten Commandments and show them they are a sinner. Even if the worst you've ever done is stolen a paperclip from work, that makes you a thief and thieves will burn in Hell for eternity. At this point (hopefully ... or I guess hopelessly) the prospect/victim is feeling guilty, condemned and scared. Now we hit 'em with the Good News, like throwing a life-preserver to a drowning man.

One big problem I had, after 48 hours of reflection, was that I didn't see Paul using the "Way of the Master" method. Or Philip with the Ethiopian eunich. Or any number of other evangelistic accounts in the books of Acts. In his speech on Mars Hill, Paul seems to have completely blown it and left out the "bad news" of Hell altogether. If only Ray and that actor guy had been there to help!

I think for people of the ancient world, the bad news was self-evident. Life was hard; often brutal and short. Any day those barbarian hordes (or Roman armies) could come over the horizon and take away everything you love. The rich and powerful oppressed the poor and powerless, who had little hope for justice. Your life, or the lives of those you love, could be cut off at any moment by any number of causes. There was little in the way of security. And death was just a shadowy, forlorn semi-existence, at best.

The Greeks dealt with this by either being Epicurian ("Life sucks, so let's party!) or Stoic ("Life sucks, so let's disassociate from external things and focus on living a life of virtue and reason") or Gnostic ("Life sucks, because the material world is evil, so let's cultivate secret knowledge that will enable us to escape this realm") or pagan ("Life sucks, but maybe if we appease the gods they won't make it suck any worse").

The proclamation of the Good News didn't need any introductory lead-in of bad news. The bad news was all around them. The Good News, as N.T. Wright says, is simply this: Jesus is Lord. The implication, of course, being that in Him is found life and light and meaning and purpose and forgiveness and peace and security and hope and, most of all, love.

I became a follower of Jesus, not because I was convicted of my sin, but because my life was empty and meaningless. What "Jesus is Lord" meant to me (and still means to me) was meaning and purpose brought about by entering into a relationship with the creator of the universe. As an extra added bonus, my sins were forgiven and my heart was changed. I began to experience life eternal (aionios - of the ages) here and now.

I didn't need the bad news of Hell to make the Good News of this new life in Christ any sweeter than it already is.

Sorry for digressing...

[Guest]

Danny,

I really enjoyed reading your post. I definitely see what you are saying. Just a couple of thoughts...

I think for people of the ancient world, the bad news was self-evident. Life was hard; often brutal and short. Any day those barbarian hordes (or Roman armies) could come over the horizon and take away everything you love. The rich and powerful oppressed the poor and powerless, who had little hope for justice. Your life, or the lives of those you love, could be cut off at any moment by any number of causes. There was little in the way of security. And death was just a shadowy, forlorn semi-existence, at best.

How does this apply to people in America? For many, life is not hard, full of pleasure, and relatively long. We live in an age and country full of freedom and prosperity where many think that life is great. Many would say, "I have peace/security/purpose/etc..."

Regarding the rest of your post, I certainly agree that Ray and Kirk go a little too far with their "method" of evangelizing. But, it does seem throughout Scripture that judgment, righteousness and conviction of sin is preached to those who are lost. We are lost in our sin, not just lost in a meaningless life. We truly have rebelled against God and it is a serious issue (no matter what stance someone may take on hell). I do believe that Ray and Kirk have brought back to the church (though possibly overdone) a necessary aspect of Scripture, which is that we REALLY have rebelled against a Holy God who created us and loves us.

Anyway, just my two cents.

-Rachel

[Guest]

Hi Rachel,

Thanks for your response. I always appreciate your input!

How does this apply to people in America? For many, life is not hard, full of pleasure, and relatively long. We live in an age and country full of freedom and prosperity where many think that life is great. Many would say, "I have peace/security/purpose/etc..."

That's a great point. I think our entertainment saturated, consumeristic, relatively secure American culture has left us with a gnawing sense of ennui and spiritual emptiness. This was certainly where I was at.

I think where Kirk (wasn't he in a sitcom or something?) and Ray get it wrong is in putting the cart before the horse. Their Gospel is all about sin and Hell and Jesus as a means of escape from divine wrath. Basically, the Father is really, really pissed off at you and wants to fry you, but Jesus was willing to step in-between and take the heat for you.

The Gospel that hooked me was that in the deepest, darkest midst of my sin, God sought me out. He found me first, took me by the hand and led me into the Light. Then we began the process of dealing with my sin. That process continues...

[Guest]

Just wondering, Rae, in what sense all sinners have rebelled against God.
A large proportion of them don't believe in God, or if they do, they ignore Him. That doesn't sound like rebellion.

I think what grieves God about human wrongdoing, is that when we sin, we hurt ourselves and others. I think God wants us to be righteous and to live righteously only because He cares so much about us, and wants the very best for us. Isn't that why Jesus died on our behalf "that we might die to sin and live to righteousess", and that He wants us healed of our sin-sickness, so that we will be able to do so by His enabling grace? {1 Peter 2:24; Titus 2:11-14}

I know someone reading this wants to immediately quote David's statement "Against You and You only have I sinned." But it's pretty obvious that David sinned against Uriah too, not only by having his wife, but by strategically placing Uriah in the army so that he would be killed.

No sin can harm God. Yet I know He sorrows over sin; his great heart is broken because of it. It also angers Him. But I think the reason for all of this is that He knows how we humans continue to harm ourselves with evil choices, including "sins of omission".

Because of His great concern for people, He is angry also for the injustices done to the poor and helpless. Much is written in the Scriptures in this regard.

[Guest]

People might be forced to confess "Jesus is Lord" but stating it doesn't necessarily mean they believe in Him unto salvation: "The demons believe and tremble." The "Jesus is Lord" creedal confession leads to salvation (obtained in this age only, Romans 10:9-10).


The demons believed because they knew, but they never made Jesus their Lord did they Rick?
I did'nt realize Rom 10.9-10 says "in this age only", which bible translation is it in?
But the bible does say you can only believe Jesus is Lord through the Holy Spirit. If you have the Holy Spirit you are saved or at least on the right path.
In Romans 8.20 "the creation" groaning and waiting for the revealing of the Sons of God has got to be the rest of mankind, as Paul is not interested in trees he is interested in his fellow human beings.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Are you a closet Calvinist? :Shocked: God's grace is irresistable post mortem, but resistable in this life? God is Armenian in this age but a Calvinist in the next? This is a new theological concept to me, I'd like to hear more of it!

Of course I don't think God is either Arminian or Calvinist. Calvinism, Arminianism, Universalism and all of our other "isms" are our feeble attempts to understand what God is up to. All of these approaches are concerned with trying to reconcile our understanding of God's sovereignty with His love and His wrath at sin.

Can God's grace be resisted? Sure, for a while. Even for a lifetime. Can God's grace be resisted forever? I don't think so.

Since Rick brought it up, I'm going to trot out "Talbott's Triad", which is explained in an article by Thomas Talbott which Rick linked to earlier: http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/prolegomenon.shtml

Give it a look and see what you think.

If God wants people to love Him, but only of their own free will (His terms), I think He will have precisely what He wants when He accepts those who love Him without coercion and casts away those who reject Him.

This all sounds strangely familier. Haven't we had this discussion in the past?

God does want us to love Him of our own free will. Free will, however, is perhaps in shorter supply than we might think. Perhaps God has to first free us in order for us to be able to freely love Him back. Perhaps the initial freeing action that God performs (say, knocking someone off their horse and giving them a blinding epiphany) is against our own will, since our own will is not free at all but is blinded, lost and sickened by sin.

I was pondering this morning that perhap alcoholism is a good picture of sin as a whole. Is alcoholism a sin? Surely. Is an alcoholic responsible for their choices to drink? Yes. Can an alcoholic control their desire to drink? No, they are overcome by the compulsion of the addiction. So an alcoholic suffers from a disease that has come upon them, yet at the same time bears some culpability, yet at the same time is helpless to overcome it. I think that's a pretty good description of sin in general. Or as Paul put it:

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" - Rom 7:14-25

It doesn't sound like Paul is making a case for free will here.

I fail to see how you think He "wins" when people are tortured until they "love" Him.

What a horrid thought. Almost as horrid as God torturing people for eternity with no respite or hope of an end. I wonder though, when my young son defiantly disobeyed me and, as a result, endangered himself I felt I had to spank him and ground him. I did not enjoy it, but I knew it had to be done. Was it torture? No. Was I violating his free will? You bet. Was it coercion? Absolutely, but in the most positive sense of the word.

Back to my alcoholism analogy, what if my son grew up to become an alcoholic and was a danger to himself and others? What if those who loved him staged an "intervention" to coerce him into getting treatment? What if the treatment was unpleasant -- painful even -- but the end result was his restoration? Or should we have not intervened, but backed off and left it to him to exercise his free will in the matter?

(I should clarify that this is a hypothetical scenario. My son is not an alcoholic. He is a college student however, so please pray for him! )

I also fail to see how you consider Satan the victor when he and all who serve him are destroyed. Kind of sounds like defeat to me.

If a suicide bomber gets on a bus full of schoolchildren and manages to kill himself and 80% of the children on board, has he succeeded in his mission? If his goal was to cause pain, misery and sorrow to the parents and the community then yes, he has.

If God's desire is that all people be saved and Satan is able to thwart the realization of that desire, then Satan has achieved a victory over God.